Reinforcement with Geosynthetics

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. | www.geo-slope.com

1200, 700 - 6th Ave SW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 0T8
Main: +1 403 269 2002 | Fax: +1 888 463 2239

Introduction
Reinforced earth walls or Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls are gravity retaining structures
built with earth and some form of reinforcement. Their construction involves placing alternating
layers of soil and reinforcement, connected to front facing panels. The reinforcement can be metal
strips, steel grids, or geosynthetic materials, like geogrid or geofabric. The soil within the wall itself
is usually engineered granular material.

This example demonstrates the use of SLOPE/W to check the internal stability of reinforced earth
walls. From a stability analysis perspective, the concepts are very similar to analyzing the stability of
anchored tie-back walls or soil nail walls, where the reinforcement simply becomes a concentrated
line load. However, for these structures, the bond or shear resistance between the soil and the
reinforcement is a function of the overburden stress because the soil is a granular material.

Background
The magnitude of the geosynthetic load is governed by either: (1) the pull-out resistance of the
geosynthetic; or (2) its tensile capacity. There are two methods available for defining the
geosynthetic pull-out resistance (green box, Figure 1), depending on the stress transfer mechanism
of the reinforcement. If the dominant stress transfer mechanism is passive resistance, than the pull-
out resistance can be specified as a force per unit length of geosynthetic, per unit width in the out-
of-plane direction. Passive resistance is generally associated with the development of bearing
stresses acting on relatively stiff reinforcement members, situated normal to the pull-out direction.
Conversely, if frictional resistance is the dominant stress transfer mechanism, the pull-out resistance,
𝑃𝑅, can be calculated from the overburden stress by:

𝑃𝑅 = (𝑆𝐼𝐴 + 𝜎𝑣' ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛿) ∙ 𝑆𝐴𝐹 Equation 1

1
 '
where 𝜎𝑣 is the effective overburden stress and 𝑆𝐼𝐴 is the interface adhesion, which is the apparent
cohesion under effective drained soil conditions, or the undrained strength at the geosynthetic-soil
interface. The interface shear angle, 𝛿, represents the angle of interface shearing resistance and 𝑆𝐴𝐹
is a surface area factor, which accounts for the mobilized pull-out resistance on the geosynthetic top
and bottom. A resistance reduction factor, 𝑅𝐹𝑅, may be specified such that the factored pull-out
resistance, 𝐹𝑃𝑅, is:

𝑃𝑅 Equation 2
𝐹𝑃𝑅 =
𝑅𝐹𝑅

where the resistance reduction factor can be used to account for a variety of issues such non-linear
stress reduction over the embedded length or installation damage and deterioration. There is no
spacing term included in this equation, as with anchors or nails, since geosynthetic reinforcement is
continuous in the out-of-page direction. Thus, the reinforcement properties are considered to be per
unit distance.

Figure 1. Geosynthetic reinforcement specifications for the base case (Analysis 1), including factor of safety dependence
(yellow box), pull-out resistance definition (green box), and tensile capacity definition (orange box).

A reduction factor may also be applied to the tensile capacity, such that the factored tensile capacity,
𝐹𝑇𝐶, is calculated as:

𝑇𝐶 Equation 3
𝐹𝑇𝐶 =
𝑅𝐹𝑇

2
where 𝑇𝐶 and 𝑅𝐹𝑇 are the specified tensile capacity and tensile reduction factor, respectively, in the
reinforcement dialogue box (orange box Figure 1). When the ‘factor of safety dependent’ option is
selected (yellow box in Figure 1), then the factor of safety is added to the denominator in both
Equation 2 and Equation 3.

Numerical Simulation
This example considers a 10-m high MSE wall with four layers of geosynthetic reinforcement (Figure
2). The general slope material and engineered fill have a unit weight of 20 kN/m3, a cohesion of 0
kPa, and a friction angle of 30ᵒ. The slip surfaces are defined by the axis point at coordinate (19,18)
and the Entry and Exit method such that all trial slip surfaces exit the domain at the bottom of the
wall (Figure 2). The Spencer limit equilibrium method is used to determine the factor of safety for
each slip surface. Pore water pressures are not defined in this project.

Figure 2. Example configuration with the slip surface definition and geosynthetic reinforcement for all three analyses.

The example includes three analyses (Figure 3). The first represents the base case where the
reinforcement is not dependent on the factor of safety and the pull-out resistance is a constant,
specified as a force per area. The second analysis considers the stability when the reinforcement
load depends on the factor of safety, and the third calculates the pull-out resistance given the
overburden pressure, given an interface shear angle of 30°. The specified properties for the
geosynthetic reinforcement are given in Table 1.

3
Figure 3. Project analysis tree.

Table 1. Geosynthetic reinforcement specifications for all three analyses.

Property Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3

Length 9m 9m 9m
Inclination 0° 0° 0°
Factor of Safety Dependent No Yes No
Force Distribution Distributed Distributed Distributed
Pull-out Resistance 75 kPa 75 kPa Calculated
Resistance Reduction Factor 1.5 1.5 1.5
Tensile Capacity 180 kN 180 kN 180 kN
Tensile Reduction Factor 1.5 1.5 1.5

The factored pullout resistance for Analysis 1 is 50 kN (75 kN / 1.5) per metre of embedment behind
the slip surface, while the maximum tensile capacity is 120 kN (180 kN /1.5). Therefore, as the
embedment length behind the slip surface increases, the geosynthetic force will increase from 0 kN
until the maximum tensile capacity is reached (120 kN). The embedment length associated with a
pull-out resistance of 120 kN is 2.4 m. Thus, when the embedment length is greater than 2.4 m, the
tensile capacity will govern the geosynthetic force used in the stability analysis.

Results and Discussion

The critical slip surface for the base case (Analysis 1) has a factor of safety of 1.401 (Figure 4). The slip
surface colour map indicates that many of the slip surfaces have a factor of safety between 1.4 and
1.44 (light green area in Figure 4). The results also show that sufficient embedment is available, as
indicated by the length of the red boxes around the reinforcement. This means that the pull-out
resistance is greater than the tensile capacity of the reinforcement and, consequently, the tensile
capacity governs. This information can be found in the View Object Information list, and is depicted
by the dashed reinforcement lines (Figure 4). Thus, each reinforcement layer provides 120 kN
towards the stability, which is distributed amongst the slices intersecting the reinforcement line of
action.

4
Figure 4. Stability results for the base case (Analysis 1) when the pullout resistance is a constant and the reinforcement is
not factor of safety dependent.

When the reinforcement load depends on the factor of safety (Analysis 2), the critical factor of safety
is 1.434 (Figure 5). Overall, the results are similar to the base case as the reduction factor for both
pull-out resistance and tensile capacity specified in Analysis 1 was 1.5, which is relatively similar to the
computed factor of safety. The factor of safety contours indicate that most of the slip surfaces have
a factor of safety between 1.434 and 1.52. These results suggest that there is a wide shear band
governing stability, as opposed to one specific slip surface.

Figure 5. Stability results when the reinforcement load depends on the computed factor of safety (Analysis 2).

5
The critical factor of safety computed in Analysis 3, when the pull-out resistance is a function of
overburden pressure, is 1.199 (Figure 6). The overburden pressure increases with depth so the top
two reinforcement layers have a lower pull-out resistance due to lower overburden pressure. Thus,
the pull-out resistance governs the force available from the top two reinforcement layers (indicated
by the solid line in Figure 6). The greater overburden pressure at the depths of the lower two
reinforcement layers, corresponds to higher pull-out resistance and so the geosynthetic tensile
capacity governs (dashed lines in Figure 6). The forces contributed by the lower two reinforcement
layers are the same as in the previous analyses (120 kN each) but the forces provided by the upper
layers are less (20.8 and 87.8 kN), resulting in a lower factor of safety than the previous two
analyses.

Figure 6. Stability results when pull-out resistance is a function of the overburden pressure (Analysis 3).

SLOPE/W includes an option to specify the direction of the reinforcement force; for example, parallel
to the slip surface. Unfortunately, this means that the entire reinforcement force is concentrated at
the point where the line of action crosses the slip surface, which generally causes convergence
issues. Therefore, this option should be used sparingly and only for investigating its effect on
specific slip surfaces.

Summary and Conclusions

This example demonstrates the various inputs and options available when simulating the stability of
MSE walls. The base case indicated that tensile capacity governed the reinforcement loads
contributing to stability. When the reinforcement load was dependent on factor of safety, the
results did not change significantly. However, if the pull-out resistance and tensile capacity reduction
factors were specified differently in Analysis 1, the results would be less similar to those computed in
Analysis 2. When the pull-out resistance was calculated as a function of overburden pressure, the

6
factor of safety decreased due to the decline in pull-out resistance of the top two reinforcement
layers.

One of the most challenging parts of simulating MSE walls is applying the appropriate pull-out
characteristics and tensile capacities for the reinforcement, as this information is often considered
proprietary. For this reason, it is usually necessary to work with the reinforcement supplier when
analyzing these systems. Finally, the guidelines provided by Holtz et al. (1997) are also helpful for
analyzing and designing MSE walls.

References
Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R. and Berg, R.R. 1997. Geosynthetic Engineering, BiTech Publishers Ltd.,
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.